Tannehill's my favorite quarterback in this draft. I'd take him over Luck. What he's done at A&M is pretty amazing. Comes in and as a walk-on RS Freshman has a record-setting season at wide receiver, including a game with 12 catches for 210 yards. Midway through his junior season, he gets asked to move back to quarterback, the position he was recruited to play. And right away, he has success. The videos I'm linking to are both SEC defenses. Andrew Luck doesn't have a whole lot of games against the caliber of athletes on found on powerhouse SEC schools. Ryan Tannehill can nail the deep out. He does it in front of Patrick Peterson from the far side of the field - he's got plenty of arm strength. I think he has the best arm in this class. He's obviously raw, but I think the upside is so obvious that a team should pick him and work with him. Mechanics and footwork will come. He's already got a really quick, tight throwing motion, and throws with good touch on the run.

And, since he's been more of an athlete through his career and is used to contact and being tackled, getting pressured in the pocket really doesn't seem to phase him that much. He just tries to get the pass off. Don't think a guy studying to be an orthopedic surgeon is going to have much trouble with play books or schemes, either. It's certainly risky to take him #1 overall because he's such an unrefined player, but I'd take him over Luck if given the choice. If he made it to Seattle in round two I'd be stoked, but I think between now and the draft his stock is going to be one of those that just keeps rising. If he has a big bowl game, he's a first round pick, because he's going to blow up the combine and workouts.

I think what we saw last year is that teams who need QBs are willing to just take them in the first. Pretty much every QB who could make some kind of argument to get into the first did. The fact that he's so inexperienced is going to make coaches uneasy, but they can make the pick without having to worry about cap space, and I think that's got to really increase the chances of a coach drafting a player they can afford to allow a developmental period. So to answer your question simply, I think he if continues in the way he has been, he ends up in the first. I don't think he can go first overall, but he could climb right up into the top ten if he plays well and continues to improve through the end of the year. If he interviews well and teams like his character, he's bound to workout well and I can see a team taking him in the top ten. Yes, he's a one-year wonder and all that, but I do think the new draft salary structure is going to result in a lot more "unpolished" QBs being taken sooner than they used to be. Hoping he gets to the Seahawks in the second round seems a bit...optomistic...to me. I'm just thinking he looks like he has the best arm in this class when I watch him throw, and the throws he's making are the ones he has to make in the NFL. He does them routinely. I see that ability, and also the fact that he's shown a willingness to work hard and excel (walking on, changing positions multiple times), and he's a perennial All-Academic; he seems like he's got his head on straight and is maximizing his talent. So I think, "Hey, I'll go ahead and make the investment, because the upside appears to be very high and the stakes are lower than they've been for awhile."

I like Tannehill alot, his potential is through the roof and as other have said he is a very raw player at the position. His senior campaign was a little disappointing to me so I project him as a late first round pick at this point. A good post season bowl game and combine will probably help his stock.

I also hate Mike Sherman and the A&M defense. Good luck next year! Texas A&M had a legit shot to be 8-4 or 9-3 but Sherman's playcalling and the defense really blew. Tannehill's untimely int's in some of those games did not help but I would not blame their disastrous season on him.

He could be the Jake Locker of this draft class. They are both very good athletes - I really think the Skins are looking hard at Tannehill since the rumor was they would of drafted Locker had he been available. Locker did not have the great senior season many had hoped and while Tannehill was better I think he could have thrown a few less INTs.

I said earlier in the year that he's the prospect Jake Locker should have been. I was really hanging off his nutsack early this year. One of the few college QBs I've ever seen who can make any throw to any area of the field routinely. Dude just kept getting worse and worse as the season went along, though.

I still like him, though, and agree that his best football is in front of him. Needs to be developed. But hell, if Blaine Gabbert can be the 10th overall pick (and be considered by many to be the top QB), then I really don't feel bad for liking Tannehill.

He's also my favorite and I see the Browns Heckert/Holmgren making him a Brown come April. But I don't think he's anywhere near the athlete Locker is. His mobility is closer to Joe Flacco. He has plus straight line speed but isn't really a threat to scramble and create on his own. I'd say most of the top QB's that came out last year have better mobility than him, including Dalton.

His role in A&M defeats and blown leads can't be overlooked but it seems like half his picks are attempting to throw at Jeff Fuller. It's as if he's trusted Fuller too much this year, routinely throwing the ball up to him, giving him an opportunity to match the catch, even when well covered. Obviously it hasn't worked out. Fuller is vastly overrated imo based on what I've seen this season.

The picks to Fuller emphasize his reluctance or inability to improvise/ scramble. At this point he's a bit mechanical in his execution and progressions. Definitely owns the strongest arm in this class and looks perfectly suited for the short to intermediate offense Shurmur is trying to run in Cleveland. Not quite as accurate deep but he's made plenty of picture perfect bucket throws, it's a matter of consistency.

Did anyone see his girl in the stands vs Texas? Her man is having a poor performance and the team is giving up another 1st half lead, and she just winks at the camera and cheeses. How embarrassing, lol. That could knock him down a grade.

__________________..yes, this sig is a little embarrassing right now...but it's like my penance

Tannehill is more mobile than Flacco. I don't get where you're coming from with that. You think Flacco could have played WR for Texas A&M and had over 800 yards receiving and 5 TDs, the way Tannehill did as a freshman??

Only three guys last year conceivably could have done that; Newton, Locker and Gabbert.
If Tannehill is anything, he's an outstanding pure athlete IMO.

He's also my favorite and I see the Browns Heckert/Holmgren making him a Brown come April. But I don't think he's anywhere near the athlete Locker is. His mobility is closer to Joe Flacco. He has plus straight line speed but isn't really a threat to scramble and create on his own. I'd say most of the top QB's that came out last year have better mobility than him, including Dalton.

His role in A&M defeats and blown leads can't be overlooked but it seems like half his picks are attempting to throw at Jeff Fuller. It's as if he's trusted Fuller too much this year, routinely throwing the ball up to him, giving him an opportunity to match the catch, even when well covered. Obviously it hasn't worked out. Fuller is vastly overrated imo based on what I've seen this season.

The picks to Fuller emphasize his reluctance or inability to improvise/ scramble. At this point he's a bit mechanical in his execution and progressions. Definitely owns the strongest arm in this class and looks perfectly suited for the short to intermediate offense Shurmur is trying to run in Cleveland. Not quite as accurate deep but he's made plenty of picture perfect bucket throws, it's a matter of consistency.

Did anyone see his girl in the stands vs Texas? Her man is having a poor performance and the team is giving up another 1st half lead, and she just winks at the camera and cheeses. How embarrassing, lol. That could knock him down a grade.

I couldn't agree more. When watching his games he would have open field ahead of him but it seemed like something stopped him from just taking off for a first down - like he was playing mechanical rather than just playing the game. I have to wonder if he had been coached up not to run.

I think his accuracy is generally okay, and dude makes more "NFL" throws than most of the QBs in this class. Like people have said, he's overly-robotic in his mechanics. I'm more concerned with his tendency to throw blind into coverage after his first read.

...Sometimes. Other times, he drops in into tiny spaces beautifully. He's definitely extremely raw and inconsistent, so I guess I'm just kind of enamored with what seems like a huuuuuge potential. He's got a couple things that separate him from your typical "Athlete"-labeled prospects in that his arm is totally legit, and he's got a good reputation as a student and worker. I mean, if this was talking about a 6'4" RS Sophomore...say, he redshirts as a receiver, then last year was a RS Frosh season where he switched back to QB, and this this year was his Sophomore year, and he still had two more... people would be looking at his physical ability, the early success he's had against good defenses, and would be thinking, "This guy still has tons of room to improve and could be the number one overall pick in 2014." It's just that he moved to QB late in his career, so as a RS Senior you've got people saying, "Well, he doesn't have very much experience and he's really raw," as if college is the only place to prepare to be an NFL QB. I'm looking at his skill set, thinking that the skill set is pretty elite, and thinking, "Yes, I am willing to wait three years for him to develop, because after that I might have an elite QB for another decade." IS he on Andrew Luck's level right now? Aboslutely not, but his upside is also higher. And again, I think he throws a better ball. Andrew Luck executes plays beautifully; to me, that's what really stands out with Luck. He runs that offense like he was born to - he's just super, super comfortable in it and always looks really composed. He's also more accurate. Barkley is probably better suited to start at this point than Tannehill, too, but I'm not much of a Landry Jones fan, and between RGIII and Tannehill I think I prefer Tannehill's height, inter-positional experience and arm more than RGIII's reputation as a great athlete. Tannehill seems to offer a bit more as a runner, although both actually take of to run a little less than I'd like, at least at the college level. Both of them, while possessing real speed, seem like they are so committed to throwing sometimes that they leave some yards on the field when they could easily scramble for 5 or more. But that's nitpicky.

For me, at this point, my QB ranking as looking kinda like

1. Andrew Luck/Ryan Tannehill. Depends on a team's scheme and whether they already have an established starter. If it's Indy picking, they've got to go Luck. Tannehill just does not seem like a good fit for that offense. Context aside, I've been saying I like Tannehill better, but you've got to look at which teams are picking when you're projecting where a player's going to go, and Luck fits better in Indy. I suppose as I say this, I'm saying so thinking Luck will be playing right away. I've got kind of a bad feeling about Manning. Wouldn't surprise me if he's done. If he's not... It'd probably benefit Tannehill a lot to learn from him for a couple years, but it be a way bigger change in offensive scheme from Manning to Tanehill than it would be from Manning to Luck. I don't trust Miami's staff, so sending Tannehill there could be a disaster. I do think that with these developmental guys, a TON of their success is predicated on where they land. I think the upside is huge, and that's why I rank him so highly, but I also definitely think he needs to go to a place where he'll get good coaching. Seattle is probably one of the first landing spots that looks really good in that regard, although Cleveland is intriguing. The only other teams in the top half of the first who might take a QB would probably be Washington or KC.

3. Matt Barkley. I think he'll go ahead of Tannehill to a team like Washington or Miami. He's pretty polished, pretty capable, but isn't very exciting to me. I think he's a guy who'll start in the NFL for a decade without being a Pro Bowler. Almost kind of a weird combination of David Garrard and Matt Hasselbeck. I see him as a decent starter who could make some Pro Bowls by efficiently leading a good team, and he's got some athleticism and can make plays when the called one fails.

4. Robert Griffin III. I like his athleticism, but don't really like the way he uses it, to be honest. He throws some really nice deep balls, and has pretty good pocket presence and awareness. I think he's a bit overhyped. I think a team with an aging QB would do well to pick him up in the later first and let him settle into an offense. I don't think he's a player who can turn around a franchise. Kind of like Barkley. I think if you get him on a good team, he's not going to hurt you; he'll be a good player. Oddly, in a way I think I'm docking him a bit for his running ability. As in, I don't think he scrambles as well as he should, given his athletic ability. Now, you might think that's insane of me to think, but weirdly, sometimes when I watch him scramble he just doesn't look very good to me, and when I'm watching athletic QBs run around trying to make plays... I'm not just looking at YPC, or if they can get a first down when there's 10 yards of grass in front of them, I'm looking at how well they extend plays in the pocket. That's something Cam Newton does really well; he's not running it down the field, he's running around behind the line of scrimmage avoiding tacklers until he can throw. With RGIII, everyone knows he's got the speed, but he's not as elusive in the pocket as I guess I think he should be. I don't know. Nitpicky again. Doesn't have the strongest arm, but it's good enough. Think he could end up being Buffalo or even Dallas's first round pick.

5. Landry Jones. Just not a Jones fan. He's got a good enough arm, but it isn't elite. Got good size, but that's not what makes a QB good. He's alright. But I think I actually liked Ryan Mallett better last year. Mallett grew on me. Landry Jones isn't as slow, but neither were ever going to be drafted with their scrambling ability in mind. I think Landry's kind of like a Ryan Mallett whose arm isn't as strong. I thought Mallett went exactly where he should've gone in last year's draft, so that tells you what I think about Landry Jones. I think he's going to get picked in the first, but I think he's a QB whose stock benefits greatly from being in such a visible program.

4. Robert Griffin III. I like his athleticism, but don't really like the way he uses it, to be honest. He throws some really nice deep balls, and has pretty good pocket presence and awareness. I think he's a bit overhyped. I think a team with an aging QB would do well to pick him up in the later first and let him settle into an offense. I don't think he's a player who can turn around a franchise. Kind of like Barkley. I think if you get him on a good team, he's not going to hurt you; he'll be a good player. Oddly, in a way I think I'm docking him a bit for his running ability. As in, I don't think he scrambles as well as he should, given his athletic ability. Now, you might think that's insane of me to think, but weirdly, sometimes when I watch him scramble he just doesn't look very good to me, and when I'm watching athletic QBs run around trying to make plays... I'm not just looking at YPC, or if they can get a first down when there's 10 yards of grass in front of them, I'm looking at how well they extend plays in the pocket. That's something Cam Newton does really well; he's not running it down the field, he's running around behind the line of scrimmage avoiding tacklers until he can throw. With RGIII, everyone knows he's got the speed, but he's not as elusive in the pocket as I guess I think he should be. I don't know. Nitpicky again. Doesn't have the strongest arm, but it's good enough. Think he could end up being Buffalo or even Dallas's first round pick.

This is definitely a knock on him. For the athletic talent that Griffin is, he doesn't have a good feel for using it and being as elusive as he could be. But with his arm and talent to throw, running is just an added bonus anyhow.

5. Landry Jones. Just not a Jones fan. He's got a good enough arm, but it isn't elite. Got good size, but that's not what makes a QB good. He's alright. But I think I actually liked Ryan Mallett better last year. Mallett grew on me. Landry Jones isn't as slow, but neither were ever going to be drafted with their scrambling ability in mind. I think Landry's kind of like a Ryan Mallett whose arm isn't as strong. I thought Mallett went exactly where he should've gone in last year's draft, so that tells you what I think about Landry Jones. I think he's going to get picked in the first, but I think he's a QB whose stock benefits greatly from being in such a visible program.

He reminds a bit of Mallett too because both are great natural throwers. Given a clean pocket, both I think could shred defenses. But I liked Mallett last year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUNBUNCHER

Tannehill is more mobile than Flacco. I don't get where you're coming from with that. You think Flacco could have played WR for Texas A&M and had over 800 yards receiving and 5 TDs, the way Tannehill did as a freshman??

Only three guys last year conceivably could have done that; Newton, Locker and Gabbert.
If Tannehill is anything, he's an outstanding pure athlete IMO.

That's right-great athlete-but his athletic ability is getting a little overrated. I think his playing WR is overstated. He was a big target with good hands and straight line speed and toughness but as a QB he's not especially elusive in the pocket and doesn't possess much burst. He's a bit more mobile than Flacco but Dalton and Ponder are definitely better scramblers.

__________________..yes, this sig is a little embarrassing right now...but it's like my penance

Ryan Tannehill as the #1 QB (even if in a tie) is simply hilarious to me, as a guy that lives in Texas and has seen all of A&M's games this year. He may have potential like you say, but he could only lead a VERY talented Aggie to a 6-6 record.

Also, Griffin is a WAY better scrambler and runner than is Tannehill. Tannehill is a good athlete (not on Griffin's level obviously) but he doesn't really seem like a natural scrambler or evasive guy in the pocket. The biggest knock on Tannehill has to be the bone headed decisions. The Big-12 defensively is pretty bad, so every QB in the conference (Weeden, Tannehill, RG3, Jones, KSU QB) has ultimately looked pretty good this year.

Tannehill right now looks like Gabbert 2.0 to me, and we all know how he has looked this year for Jax.

Ryan Tannehill as the #1 QB (even if in a tie) is simply hilarious to me, as a guy that lives in Texas and has seen all of A&M's games this year. He may have potential like you say, but he could only lead a VERY talented Aggie to a 6-6 record.

Also, Griffin is a WAY better scrambler and runner than is Tannehill. Tannehill is a good athlete (not on Griffin's level obviously) but he doesn't really seem like a natural scrambler or evasive guy in the pocket. The biggest knock on Tannehill has to be the bone headed decisions. The Big-12 defensively is pretty bad, so every QB in the conference (Weeden, Tannehill, RG3, Jones, KSU QB) has ultimately looked pretty good this year.

Tannehill right now looks like Gabbert 2.0 to me, and we all know how he has looked this year for Jax.

For all of Tannehill's faults you cannot blame the .500 record solely on him. He did not play defense. The A&M defense was one of the worst in the country. He gave his team a few double digit leads and his defense blew it. With a legit defense and competent head coach this team would have been 8-4 or 9-3.

For all of Tannehill's faults you cannot blame the .500 record solely on him. He did not play defense. The A&M defense was one of the worst in the country. He gave his team a few double digit leads and his defense blew it. With a legit defense and competent head coach this team would have been 8-4 or 9-3.

I will agree that A&M should have been better, that team has a lot of talent on it. It is amazing to me that Sherman isn't getting fired. With that said Tannehill had three games this year in which he threw 3 picks, all losses. I know most of his hype is based on potential but for me he really was mediocre this year in the Big 12.

I will agree that A&M should have been better, that team has a lot of talent on it. It is amazing to me that Sherman isn't getting fired. With that said Tannehill had three games this year in which he threw 3 picks, all losses. I know most of his hype is based on potential but for me he really was mediocre this year in the Big 12.

I would say he was better than mediocre, but he did not live up to my expectations. Coming into the season I felt he would project to be a top 10-15 pick. Granted he is still raw but based on production he has fallen to the late first/early second range.

I do think during the senior bowl and combine he has potential to rise. By all accounts he is a bright kid with a good head on his shoulders. After last year's draft with the QBs being overdrafted I would not be surprised if he ends up getting picked earlier than expected.

Ryan Tannehill as the #1 QB (even if in a tie) is simply hilarious to me, as a guy that lives in Texas and has seen all of A&M's games this year. He may have potential like you say, but he could only lead a VERY talented Aggie to a 6-6 record.

I'm not simply putting them in an order and saying that any team which needs a QB should pick my "number one," and if that player is gone should pick the next guy in my rankings; some guys are definitely better prepared for NFL success than Tannehill is right now. The reason I have Tannehill ranked next to Luck is that when I look at these guys, and think about both how they play now and how much room they have to improve, I can see Tannehill developing into a really nice player - I think he could end up being better than Barkley, which is why I "rank" him above Barkley. Doesn't mean if Miami's picking I think they shouldn't pick Barkley over Tannehill; some teams might be better off picking a guy who is less of a project. Where I'm coming from is if I'm just looking at all of these prospects and imagining what I think they could be like 6 years into their careers. Like if I was a QB coach and my GM told me I could pick any of these QBs, but they wouldn't play for their first two years, I'd be really debating between Tannehill's upside and Luck's floor. That's pretty much how it seems to me. I'm not just straight-up trying to say 1 is better than 2 is better than 3, etc.

Quote:

Tannehill right now looks like Gabbert 2.0 to me, and we all know how he has looked this year for Jax.

They're definitely really similar physically, but Gabbert's main issue was always his skittishness in the pocket - that's what people, myself included, saw and just thought, "There's no way that's going to go away when the guys coming after him are even bigger, faster and meaner." And as a rookie, he's just looked like a frightened rabbit at times. Tannehill hasn't looked like that at all when I've watched him play. For me, disliking Gabbert was never about disliking his ability, it was that he's always had an extremely nervous pocket presence. If that's what you're seeing in Tannehill, I'd be interested to see some tape. That would bother me. You sound like you've probably watched more of him than I have, but the few games I've watched him, I just kept seeing him do things that made me thought he could play in the NFL. Not that he was ready to play in the NFL by any means, but that he has the ability to make plays which are extremely hard to defend. NFL coaches can hopefully coach him out of the things that would hurt him, like forcing throws to his favorite receiver when he should throw it away.

I'm not simply putting them in an order and saying that any team which needs a QB should pick my "number one," and if that player is gone should pick the next guy in my rankings; some guys are definitely better prepared for NFL success than Tannehill is right now. The reason I have Tannehill ranked next to Luck is that when I look at these guys, and think about both how they play now and how much room they have to improve, I can see Tannehill developing into a really nice player - I think he could end up being better than Barkley, which is why I "rank" him above Barkley. Doesn't mean if Miami's picking I think they shouldn't pick Barkley over Tannehill; some teams might be better off picking a guy who is less of a project. Where I'm coming from is if I'm just looking at all of these prospects and imagining what I think they could be like 6 years into their careers. Like if I was a QB coach and my GM told me I could pick any of these QBs, but they wouldn't play for their first two years, I'd be really debating between Tannehill's upside and Luck's floor. That's pretty much how it seems to me. I'm not just straight-up trying to say 1 is better than 2 is better than 3, etc.

They're definitely really similar physically, but Gabbert's main issue was always his skittishness in the pocket - that's what people, myself included, saw and just thought, "There's no way that's going to go away when the guys coming after him are even bigger, faster and meaner." And as a rookie, he's just looked like a frightened rabbit at times. Tannehill hasn't looked like that at all when I've watched him play. For me, disliking Gabbert was never about disliking his ability, it was that he's always had an extremely nervous pocket presence. If that's what you're seeing in Tannehill, I'd be interested to see some tape. That would bother me. You sound like you've probably watched more of him than I have, but the few games I've watched him, I just kept seeing him do things that made me thought he could play in the NFL. Not that he was ready to play in the NFL by any means, but that he has the ability to make plays which are extremely hard to defend. NFL coaches can hopefully coach him out of the things that would hurt him, like forcing throws to his favorite receiver when he should throw it away.

He is the type of prospect who will need a solid post season to move up the charts. How he performs in the post season will go a long way in determining just how high or low he ends up.

I'll flip that. He is the type of QB that will rise on his solid post season. Three things.

1) His untapped potential is obvious, and Scouts tend to ignore anything fixable.
2) He is expected to interview very well, even compared to other QBs. You have to love the learning curve and work ethic. As much as scouts can spot "it", he has it.
3) Tools, tools, tools.

I'll flip that. He is the type of QB that will rise on his solid post season. Three things.

1) His untapped potential is obvious, and Scouts tend to ignore anything fixable.
2) He is expected to interview very well, even compared to other QBs. You have to love the learning curve and work ethic. As much as scouts can spot "it", he has it.
3) Tools, tools, tools.

J

I cannot disagree with your assessment, he has real potential but the post season can make or break you if you have a serious flaw that we may not be aware of.
Teams have become pretty solid in appraising QB's for the draft and the success rate is increasing substantially as college QB's throw the ball more and more. Years ago, college QB's played mostly in a running attack but in today's game they mostly throw the ball and tend to be easier to judge, although nothing is perfect.
We obviously have a pretty substantial # of QB's who could go in round 1, Luck will go #1, Barkley likely #2, but after that it will be a real competition for the order of the remaiming QB's. Where Tannehill finishes up is anybodies guess at this stage of the process.

The more I look at Tannehill, the less confident I am about him. He lacks a good feel for the game and I don't think it's simply a matter of his lack of experience. Right now, I'd take Brock over him. I've never liked Foles so for me it would go-Luck, Osweiler, Griffin (Griffin has more upside but he scares me more.), Tannehill, and I guess Foles.

Tannehill has the biggest arm and is probably the 2nd fastest of the group (despite Scott's estimates), but I'll take Luck, Griffin and Osweiler's mobility over his, if that makes any sense. In other words I'd trust the other three to get a tough first down or TD running than I would Tannehill. He's still Flacco-esque and I love the upside but I've come down on him a bit and now with the foot injury he's just a big gamble in the first.

__________________..yes, this sig is a little embarrassing right now...but it's like my penance

The more I look at Tannehill, the less confident I am about him. He lacks a good feel for the game and I don't think it's simply a matter of his lack of experience. Right now, I'd take Brock over him. I've never liked Foles so for me it would go-Luck, Osweiler, Griffin (Griffin has more upside but he scares me more.), Tannehill, and I guess Foles.

Tannehill has the biggest arm and is probably the 2nd fastest of the group (despite Scott's estimates), but I'll take Luck, Griffin and Osweiler's mobility over his, if that makes any sense. In other words I'd trust the other three to get a tough first down or TD running than I would Tannehill. He's still Flacco-esque and I love the upside but I've come down on him a bit and now with the foot injury he's just a big gamble in the first.

Problem with any of these guys outside of Luck is they are going to take some time. Griffin might be able to play soon because of his skills but i doubt his team wins much. Then you have Brock and Tannehill, god knows how long it will take those two.